Twitter’s Popularity :: Has it Jumped the Shark? I don’t think so
Please forgive me for being the one to question Niall’s premise. I am not trying to be impolite. After reading the post, I went out for a look. I found these examples and would like to hear how Niall balances action/practice with his post. You’ll have to go read Twitter losing its cool first, to make sense of my comments and questions here.
Essentially, Niall’s premise is that celebrities using Twitter, and not returning their fans’ (followers) kindness by following back, is just wrong. Niall suggests Twitter has become a place for “audience interaction” – as if it wasn’t before? Hello? I think Niall is suggesting that Twitter is being used inappropriately by these celeb invaders on this heretofore land of the early adopters in an asymmetrical manner, not the two-way symmetrical model we in PR & marketing want the world to follow.
Niall poses a “Twitter Reciprocity” standard. Here’s what I found…
Niall Cook on Twitter: Following 59; Followers 328; Updates 717 – Just under 18% Twitter Reciprocity
SocialMedia2Day on Twitter: Following 1,734; Followers 1,995; Updates 752 – Just under 87% Twitter Reciprocity
SocialMedia2Day is pretty much just a feed of links. It is certainly not an example of a conversation (or connection).
I suggest that neither Niall or SocialMedia2Day are practicing what Niall’s preaching: “A way to ‘connect’ with the ordinary man and woman on the street.” Sure, SocialMediaToday does follow back. But, let’s be real folks. No one is likely reading the account, so why not follow back. It is effectively a bot.
And, while we’re at it, does anyone really think Twitter (still the venue of mostly early adopters – thinking global here) is a place to reach that “ordinary man and woman on the street”? As if such a person or demographic exists, of course.
Niall seem’s to be practicing his own version of selective contact on Twitter. That’s fine, and it is Niall’s right – and all of our’s, too, of course. Anyone might well be seeking to do that. It isn’t as if the practice weren’t the way our marketing world has worked for decades (if not centuries). If that’s the way you want your Twitter account to work, more power to you. Isn’t social media supposed to serve the individuals desires, not fit some standards? Wait, I’ll have to recheck my Cluetrain awareness and sensitivity.
But, Niall is still practicing more of an asymmetrical form of communication – one to many (or broadcast). Where is the two-way symmetrical communication model present in Niall’s own practice on Twitter? Further, given his critique of celebs with thousands & thousands of users, can one person (without a staff to help) really accomplish the two-way conversation feat on Twitter with a large following (and keep a day job)?
SocialMedia2Day is most definitely using Twitter for the same purpose Niall seems to indict the celebrities for doing. Some celebs and brands are merely dumping an RSS feed into the stream, just like Social Media Today. That, again, is perfectly alright. Still, it does not meet Niall’s standard of connecting with anyone.
One of those celebs, Stephen Fry, is practicing a better connection – Twitter Reciprocity – ratio than Niall and many commercial Twitter users.
Following: 32,053; Followers: 109,155; Updates: 1,114 - A little over 29% Twitter Reciprocity
All that being said, let’s not forget that every user gets to choose who they wish to follow, right? So, does any of this really have any manner of effect upon how useful or cool the application/site is for all users, Niall? I don’t much notice the celeb users. Here’s a clue. I don’t follow them. Out of site. Out of mind.
Lastly, I’m very curious about Niall’s “10% seems like a reasonable average (to follow back) for the normal person” declaration. Why 10%? If you only have say 20 followers, couldn’t a mere mortal pull of reading all their posts – 100%? So, 10% of what, Niall? Can one person follow and connect with 10% of 100,000 followers and still accomplish anything else in a day? Really? I don’t know that anyone can follow and engage with 10,000 individuals on Twitter (if they have 100,000 followers). Also, while we’re at it, what is a “normal person” and how did you come to that conclusion?
So many questions. So few answers.
Oh dear, Robert. Sorry if my innocent and completely unscientific post has hit a nerve.
My premise was simply that Twitter is not as cool as it was as a result of celebrities (and others) jumping the bandwagon, not that they are wrong to do so. However, if they do, then personally I would expect them to reciprocate. That’s all. Others may not have the same expectations. That’s fine. Aren’t our blogs for expressing our own views, however much they might deviate from others?
As you rightly point out, many on Twitter – myself included – do not reciprocate as much as others. However, those people are not mentioning that they use Twitter every time they go on the radio or television in the quite blatant expectation that it will increase their following. If they were, then I would expect them to follow as many of those people back to demonstrate that they were listening, rather than assuming that the entire world just wants to listen to them.
Only time will tell whether Twitter works best as a broadcast or a conversation channel.
PS. I just tried to follow you back, but I have to request your authorisation first.
Hey Niall, I appreciate you sharing your views. My take is that each user (brand or individual) will make their choices. Some brands may have such appeal that they don’t need to reciprocate. Not every instance of social media use follows the Cluetrain conversation rules. Some are still very successful in attracting a following.
Look at a large number of the social media PR people out there, especially those that tout Twitter in the blogs and speeches. Look at their reciprocity rate. They are somewhat celebs, if only in their area of practice. Does it harm their brand? I don’t know that it does, on a large grand scale.
Twitter is essentially a tool. People / brands will use it to varying degrees of success. Your premise focuses on celebrities. Why would just their participation (while not following the reciprocity rules) cause Twitter to suddenly become unpopular? I just don’t see it.
Take this post on the Top 10 PR people to follow by Danny Brown. Looking at that list, @BethHarte follows less than 50% of the time. @TDefren follows less than 25%. @LisaHoffman follows about 20%. This is, of course, their choice.
On this post about UK PR celebs, Top 50 UK PR people by Twitter influence, @jangles follows 27%. @drewb follows about 20%. @stedavies follows 34%. @prgeek follows more than follow him.
Has reciprocity rate hurt any of them?
I looked for your follow request, but didn’t see it. I follow 98% of those that request it. Why do I protect my Twitter posts? I’m not selling anything. I’m not using Twitter to promote myself and I don’t want the posts to be indexed by Google, et. al. I’ll let my blog stand as my indexed social / digital footprint. Again, a choice.
Thanks Robert.
I don’t want to turn your post into a one-on-one discussion, but you mention a couple of things that I should respond to by way or correction/clarification.
Firstly, I didn’t say that Twitter could become unpopular as a result of celebrities participation. Quite the reverse is true in fact. I said it could lose its “cool”, which is very different. When everyone in your school starts wearing the new trainers/sneakers you were the only one to have two months ago, they lose their coolness. So too with Twitter, I believe. It’s an odd paradox for a tool that relies on the network effect for its success.
Secondly, I have not suggested that anyone with a life outside of Twiiter is able to – or even should – follow everyone who follows them. In fact you may just have proved that my finger-in-the-air threshold of 10% reciprocity could be a realistic one for those using it to connect and converse with others. Personally I am more skeptical about the 26 celebrities in The Times’ list that are following less than 1% of the number following them. To me those kind of levels simply don’t suggest any desire to engage with an audience. I’d love to find some data on the number of replies they send/respond to, but unfortunately I cannot find any tools to easily mine that information. Suggestions welcome.
Hey, Niall. Thanks for the comment. I don’t see any problem with having a discussion here. My intentions are friendly, after all, and the exchange can be healthy.
We now know your definition of cool that we’re referring to being hip? I’m taking from this that you’re saying Twitter is (or could become) un-cool because so many people are beginning to use it.
I’m reminded of Yogi Bera, “Nobody goes there anymore; it’s too crowded.” To me, that falls into the area I was referring to, the early adopters are becoming unhappy. People are finding their cool hangout (application).
I don’t know. To me, some of the greatest ideas and observations come from the new users. With greater adoption, if we don’t reciprocate – we’re likely to miss how the application is perceived through fresh eyes. Also, there is a bit of a ‘giving back’ implied responsibility. But, we probably disagree on those points.
The study I’d like to see? A random sample of twitter accounts from the largest follower groups and the lowest, longest users and newest users … then, look at those follower counts and determine what kinds of conversations are actually taking place. This is partly impossible due to (a) protected accounts and (b) DMs. Further, I’d like to see the counts or actual ‘active’ users in some of these large accounts. How many of those followers are still active? Active would probably need to be something like weekly or semi-daily use of Twitter.
It is an interesting area, Niall. We have some disagreement and agreements. Now, how about sharing any studies that Hill & Knowlton is pursuing on Twitter and what are the methodologies and results? ;o) We’d love to see those.
Thanks.
I think that two-way conversation is the best part of Twitter; however, like Robert, I agree that in certain cases reciprocity is not fundamental to success. For example, people who Twitter from high-level, exclusive political meetings do not have to listen back to attract a large following, to deliver value to their audiences, and to cultivate the relationship. That said, listening and direct message responses go a long way and would appear to strengthen the relationship, even if such behavior is not a prerequisite for the relationship.
Relating this back to the academic PR literature, it might be that you are cultivating two different types of relationships, depending on your Twitter behavior. A one-way communication model used commonly by celebrity Twitterers would be likely to cultivate an exchange relationship, whereas a two-way model of listening and interacting would encourage the likelihood of cultivating a communal relationship. There is no doubt from the studies that have been done that both relationship types are good; however, far greater benefits can result from communal relationships.
Thank you both to Robert and Niall for a great conversation.
Thanks, Tiffany! Agreed. The reality of one-to-many is that it still serves a very real and positive purpose in many cases. If a celebrity, for instance, is sharing news … fans may want interaction, but they’ll gladly take the news without it. The same could be true from companies that share discounts, sales and other information without the interaction, too. I think we could all go on with many examples. Suffice to say, like all things – everything has its place.
Featured Video
So, you want to know what teachers make? This says it well. Meet slam poet Taylor Mali.
Media Coverage
Categories
Archives
Most Commented
Facebook Connect
AuburnMedia Sites Search
Most Viewed
Feedburner
Switch to our mobile site
Powered by WordPress | Log in | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS) | Arthemia theme by Michael Hutagalung